Author Topic: On the gay issue which divides our party  (Read 4521 times)

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14194
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #60 on: December 12, 2012, 04:14:18 PM »
Yep, and there are a lot of gay people- who find gay pride disgusting, and take no part in it.

No, there isn't "a lot".
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline Texas_Secession

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • Toward a free Republic
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #61 on: December 12, 2012, 04:45:28 PM »
When I first heard the term gay marriage, I laughed.  All the guys I know that are 'married' to their partners fool around on the side (I do).  Less than 0.0001% of even the most gayest of gay men are interested in finding a partner and settling down.  Dating?  Yes.  Marriage, with the contracts and I do's.  Absolutely not.

As a gay man (new to the forum), I must disagree with the original poster.  I am as homosexual as they come and fulfill most of the reprobate criteria one poster mentioned, except that I am a far, far right-wing Conservative.  Gay Marriage is an attempt by the far-left, neo-Marxist fringe to destroy hetero marriage.  Plain and simple

And to be brutally honest, I want no part of it.  Marriage to me is a religious institution, dedicated solely for child rearing and the maintenance of society.  Without it, we would be Rome.  Or worse.  Me and my partner will never get married, although we have stipulated in our wills what goes where in case we die.   Marriage is the lifeblood of our Republic.  Gays, Bi's, or drag queens have no part in it.

Stop fallling for the "let the gays in" b.s.  Fight back.  Stand up.  Stop allowing the mosquito to run the elephant.  Sometimes I shake my head at the weaklings who are straight.  Who beleive what the news media dishes out.

STAND UP.  Be a man.  DO NOT give in.  Marriage is a hetero institution.  Fight for it. 

« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 04:51:01 PM by Texas_Secession »
If your taking flak, your over the target.

Offline Paladin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Gender: Male
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #62 on: December 12, 2012, 04:49:33 PM »
Wow!  You have done at least one thing in your convuluted oratory and that is to let me know how confused you are.  No one is perfect, agreed.  It stops there, however,
I'll refer you to Romans Chp.1 vs 18-32.  This scripture was not just written for the people of that day and time but time until infinity.  Now you can try to redefine any term for these definitions that you wish, but it won't make them any more acceptable to Christ now than they were when he inspired the real meanings and consequences of them.  Abortion is not mentioned in those verses so i'll give you my unrequested opinion of that.  Life begins at inception.  Do you want the Chapter and verse for that?
Killing of an unborn fetus from the mother's womb by abortion is murder. 

There might be a subject that we can discuss but it can never be this one as i will not be swayed by liberal rhetoric.



I think its you who are confused.

1. I never said nor implied anything about the bible having no relation to our time, it does. I just understand very much of what was being condemned and punished in all of the books I mentioned, and the event in the two wicked cities. To which I agree with 100%, and see the ill effects of those behaviors that hurt man even today... However none of these things have anything to do with two people in love.


2. I didn't try to "redefine" anything. I just understand what the true meaning of the words mean... You get a much different view of the faith, when you learn Greek and Hebrew, and learn the origins and meanings of many of the words- along with understanding ancient culture, the way things were viewed. Meaning in the ancient world, homosexuals would be appalled by the behavior of modern homosexuals. As for definitions, idolatry was worship of idols in place of god, be it a statue of a pagan god, a symbol, any man made institution/ideology, or flesh and blood thing. Fornication was the sexual part of it. This is what was punished in Romans, as the people conducted themselves and in god's temple no less, in the ways he said NOT to, in Leviticus. This was also towards the temple in Rome, as in this time, there were many Hebrews (Israelite people/god's people) living in Rome, and they messed up by behaving like pagans do- and so were punished.

How it relates to our time as it did in theirs? Don't practice pagan rituals in god's house. Fornication is the pagan practice, of doing sexual things with females or males (and unnatural stuff at that.) in hope of some kind of divination. It was mostly males this was done to however, as many perverted men would mess about with little boys, who then grew up unable of being their own man, and accustomed to being used for sex and kept by men, who then became temple prostitutes.. Corinthians speaks of this also.

Again... None of this has to do with two people in love.

3. Jesus said, marriage is between one man, and one woman. I agree with this, so do many gays today, and men in the ancient world who were gay did not marry men- it was unnatural, and degrading for a man to take on the role of a female, a slave boy, or temple prostitute- in any way shape or form (including in the bed). This also means the men of today who marry X amount of women, and claim to be living a biblical life, are wrong. That was all old testament stuff, and Jesus in his time, was moving things away from old testament, as the world was no longer as it was in old testament times. New testament is Jesus's era and our modern era.

4. Never said anything about anything being acceptable to Christ. I was just simply saying, he didn't condone ill treatment, and ridicule of homosexuals (who fell into the category of Eunuch). Homosexuals were attacked, killed, and ridiculed openly in the old world. If you think Jesus would be ok with that, then please don't call yourself a Christian because you aren't. Jesus knew very well of the imperfection of man, and that many are born with a number of issues that hinder us. God knows our heart, and our limits, and only god can judge us. The man who claims to be of god, and screams at the gay who also may have god in their heart- telling him/her they are going to hell (which I do not believe in), is more likely to not make it in the book of life.

5. Abortion isn't mentioned in the bible. Though the bible states we must respect all life, including our own. If a woman has any kind of health issues, that may put her life at risk while pregnant. It is not the will of god, that she goes through with the pregnancy and possibly dies. Anyone who believes such a thing is backwards, and has no real understanding of god. Is abortion horrible? Yes it is, especially because of its original intent. Though again it all goes back to god knowing the true heart of the individual. Not you, not me, not the government, not a priest, or politician who also tries to wear the hat of a priest as well. I'm not hung up on the argument over when life begins, it useless. The only thing I'm concerned about, is if a woman chooses to have an abortion due to health reasons, that's her choice, and something she must deal with her family with (if she's got one), and god (if she believes).

Its nice to spout scriptures and all, but if you do not understand the meaning of what is being said, which largely comes from not understanding origins or meanings of certain words within them, then its useless. Wrong when one tries to apply it to policy, that interferes with those who may not believe the same. This is what happened in Europe when the Catholic church ruled through the government. Our founding fathers left that, and did not want to see that here. Unfortunately many politicians on the right, and their supporters- don't get that.

On the political side of it... I don't need nor want to hear a politician preaching to me about these issues. That's something for the church to do, not a politician.

This is not a modern liberal position, this is a classic liberal position, a constitutional position, classic Republican position, and the position of someone who believes in freedom- and staying out of the personal lives of people- as long as its not hurting him, others, or the country.


« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 05:03:15 PM by Paladin »

Offline Paladin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Gender: Male
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #63 on: December 12, 2012, 04:50:18 PM »
No, there isn't "a lot".

And you know this how?

Offline Patriot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Gender: Male
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #64 on: December 12, 2012, 04:53:38 PM »
No, there isn't "a lot".
Unless either side has data, it is difficult to make definite comments about this.  I think if you were to look at news reports on these events to get a rough sense of numbers and compare that to whatever the percentage of the population is gay in a given area, it would be a very small percentage that attends.  Hard to tell without an accurate poll what percentage finds the events disgusting.   Just from some casual conversations, I think there are gays who are not pleased with these events because of the impression they give to the rest of us.  Hard to say the percentages though.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 04:58:47 PM by USAPatriot »

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34193
  • Gender: Male
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #65 on: December 12, 2012, 05:38:40 PM »

LOL You don't get it.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything, and you only repeated what I said in the end. The gov has no business getting involved with who marries who. Nothing changes for you or me, if two men are allowed to marry. What you're arguing for has nothing to do with the Republican party, or even original conservatism. I'd agree with your words, if people were going to force you or me, to marry men lol.
Forget the GOP, they are a useless bunch of RINO, I'm commenting on what you said.
Now read it again and see if you can comprehend what I''m saying about amending the Constitution.
Are you actually willing to let that happen?

Yet you don't see the obverse?
In forcing social change as to accepting a perversion by a small minority is a Constitutional issue, it would require a Constitutional Amendment for it to be accepted.
So in a sense, you are telling me to accept what politicians dictate.

Why should we be forced into change, were not demanding any Constitutional changes, were not the ones demanding people accept a perversion into mainstream  America.

No, I think you have it completely bassackwards.
If anything you should be asking yourself why the Fed is in the Marriage business in the first place?
Answer: For the money and control.

I want the Fed out of marriage. Period!
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 5201
  • Gender: Male
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #66 on: December 12, 2012, 05:53:51 PM »
First of all, whether it's state or federal, the governmet HAS to be involved in the gay marriage issue.
Why?
Because the majority of weddings are still held in churches, and the majority of churches won't perform gay weddings. So, we are left with judges or justices of the peace, both of which are required to follow the state's rules. No way around government involvement.

I tend to agree with Paladin, but calling them marriages causes problems, and changes the very definition of what, (for centuries), has defined the binding relationship between a man and a woman. I too, have a problem with calling these relationships, "marriage".

In the UK, the state ruled that they will be called, "civil partnerships", and that the state will not force the churches to perform the ceremonies. Case closed, all is well, nobody cares................no big deal. Makes sense too, since I've never heard of a gay couple referring to each other as husband and wife. Typically, it's "my partner".

As usual, it's the radicals from both sides that control the argument. Here in NC, many counties were quietly performing same sex civil unions. Nobody complained or cared. Along came the loudmouth gay radicals, screaming MARRIAGE-MARRIAGE-MARRIAGE. Who knows if they were even gay...............maybe just leftist shit disturbers.
Long story, short. Gay MARRIAGE was put on the ballot, and shot down. It's too bad that it was insisted on being put on the ballot. I'm sure that most gays were fine with things the way they were. They were getting what they wanted, and there wasn't a big fight involved. The people that wanted to make headlines, screwed it up.

Offline covert

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #67 on: December 12, 2012, 05:58:49 PM »
how is there a gay issue? what does preference have to do with rights?

Offline Yawn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3265
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #68 on: December 12, 2012, 06:12:36 PM »
how is there a gay issue? what does preference have to do with rights?

Look at where their agenda leads for mainstream America. There is no "tolerance" among those who demand special rights for homosexuals.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to criticize this deathstyle.  You cannot point out where this way of life leads. Right now, in America, it's just queer pressure (peer pressure). Soon, as this 1% gain political power, we'll follow other nations making it a CRIME to have an opinion THEY don't approve of.  Your children will inherit a very dark world--a new Dark Age--if they have their way.

BTW, no need to scream. We all heard you.

Offline Darth Fife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2012, 06:13:35 PM »
how is there a gay issue? what does preference have to do with rights?

Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation or did you just want to show us all that you figured out how to use the text size and color gadgets? :huh:

Oh, and welcome to the forum! :smile:
"You've been told many times before, messiahs pointed to the door
But no one had the guts to leave the Temple!"
-Tommy, The Who

Offline Paladin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Gender: Male
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #70 on: December 12, 2012, 06:27:15 PM »
Forget the GOP, they are a useless bunch of RINO, I'm commenting on what you said.
Now read it again and see if you can comprehend what I''m saying about amending the Constitution.
Are you actually willing to let that happen?

Yet you don't see the obverse?
In forcing social change as to accepting a perversion by a small minority is a Constitutional issue, it would require a Constitutional Amendment for it to be accepted.
So in a sense, you are telling me to accept what politicians dictate.

Why should we be forced into change, were not demanding any Constitutional changes, were not the ones demanding people accept a perversion into mainstream  America.

No, I think you have it completely bassackwards.
If anything you should be asking yourself why the Fed is in the Marriage business in the first place?
Answer: For the money and control.

I want the Fed out of marriage. Period!



You misunderstand still.


I never said anything about advocating change of the constitution. I also said there were gays who do not care to change the definition of marriage, and don't care for it, and that I don't agree with gay marriage myself-but its not up to me or anyone else to dictate who can marry who. The people who want to change the definition of marriage, and by extension the constitution, are left-wing activist- who want to poke the religious right, and just don't care about the constitution in general, just like many on the right don't. If tomorrow every member of the Republican party fully supported civil unions, and states deciding the issue of marriage- the left would be shocked, some very happy- but the fringe group activist would still rage, because they want the definition changed, to again upset the religious right. They have a strong hatred for good tradition that promotes noble behavior, and values.. They are evil.


Sarah Palin as governor, actually vetoed a bill which would have prevented same sex couples, from receiving their partner's benefits. Unfortunately there are too many Republicans like Santorum (or Republicans afraid to upset the religious right), who wouldn't acknowledge the union of a same sex couple- which he said during the primaries. Therefore a same sex couple would not be entitled to their partner's benefits and such, all because of what he believes religiously- he even didn't like the idea of states deciding on the issue.. He's wrong. This is what I'm talking about; not changing the constitution. And the Republicans who do support civil unions, and would acknowledge a union between a same sex couple- get trashed by the religious right. They get called "rinos" or "lefties", which ultimately makes the Republican party and modern conservatives, look like a political church- and its hurting the party more and more.

And even if the gay left wing activist get what they want, in changing the definition- which I think they will, since Republicans are horrible at explaining issues. It doesn't force me to do anything different in my life. It doesn't pick my pocket, change my faith, hurt me or anyone I love, nor the country- so I don't care on that issue. If you're one of those people who think god will punish America for allowing gay marriage, then you believe we are to be judged as a collective group, a nation, a church or religious group- and not as individuals. 

Offline Paladin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Gender: Male
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #71 on: December 12, 2012, 07:08:24 PM »
First of all, whether it's state or federal, the governmet HAS to be involved in the gay marriage issue.
Why?
Because the majority of weddings are still held in churches, and the majority of churches won't perform gay weddings. So, we are left with judges or justices of the peace, both of which are required to follow the state's rules. No way around government involvement.

I tend to agree with Paladin, but calling them marriages causes problems, and changes the very definition of what, (for centuries), has defined the binding relationship between a man and a woman. I too, have a problem with calling these relationships, "marriage".

In the UK, the state ruled that they will be called, "civil partnerships", and that the state will not force the churches to perform the ceremonies. Case closed, all is well, nobody cares................no big deal. Makes sense too, since I've never heard of a gay couple referring to each other as husband and wife. Typically, it's "my partner".

As usual, it's the radicals from both sides that control the argument. Here in NC, many counties were quietly performing same sex civil unions. Nobody complained or cared. Along came the loudmouth gay radicals, screaming MARRIAGE-MARRIAGE-MARRIAGE. Who knows if they were even gay...............maybe just leftist shit disturbers.
Long story, short. Gay MARRIAGE was put on the ballot, and shot down. It's too bad that it was insisted on being put on the ballot. I'm sure that most gays were fine with things the way they were. They were getting what they wanted, and there wasn't a big fight involved. The people that wanted to make headlines, screwed it up.

Oh I don't agree with gay marriage in the sense of changing any definitions, or the constitution. There are quite a few gays out there, friends I know, and my brother included- who have no desire to change anything- and don't even like the term "marriage" between two men or women- because they see it as emulating male/female- and feel that's wrong... I agree.

What you said, is exactly what I'm talking about- but too many people are more concerned with religious stuff- and not what the founding fathers intended for the country and people. The Republican party, instead of being a political church- which is what they've become ever since they've become linked up with the Christian coalition- because they saw how much it helped Democrats- need to get back to Lincoln Republicanism. Be the party that stresses, you will fight hard for the freedom and rights for all Americans, which includes religious rights and freedoms. There are churches that are very accepting of gays, and will conduct weddings for them. Then there are people who don't believe in god, or may but not into being apart of any church- who will have the wedding done without a priest. Republicans need to express how they will protect churches who do not believe in these things, from being forced into having to do them.

Instead they come at it in a way, all out of fear of upsetting the religious right- who will not vote for them; which makes them look like judgmental prudes- and makes easy ammo for the leftist- which hurts the party, especially since this link with the Christian coalition, was never apart of the Republican party. I know conservatives who believe in the common sense issues of conservatism, and what the Republican party stood for... But don't believe in god- though they respect it.

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14194
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #72 on: December 12, 2012, 09:27:31 PM »
And you know this how?

Because I live in a city where business and social interaction with gays is common.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 5201
  • Gender: Male
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #73 on: December 13, 2012, 02:59:55 AM »
Oh I don't agree with gay marriage in the sense of changing any definitions, or the constitution. There are quite a few gays out there, friends I know, and my brother included- who have no desire to change anything- and don't even like the term "marriage" between two men or women- because they see it as emulating male/female- and feel that's wrong... I agree.

What you said, is exactly what I'm talking about- but too many people are more concerned with religious stuff- and not what the founding fathers intended for the country and people. The Republican party, instead of being a political church- which is what they've become ever since they've become linked up with the Christian coalition- because they saw how much it helped Democrats- need to get back to Lincoln Republicanism. Be the party that stresses, you will fight hard for the freedom and rights for all Americans, which includes religious rights and freedoms. There are churches that are very accepting of gays, and will conduct weddings for them. Then there are people who don't believe in god, or may but not into being apart of any church- who will have the wedding done without a priest. Republicans need to express how they will protect churches who do not believe in these things, from being forced into having to do them.

Instead they come at it in a way, all out of fear of upsetting the religious right- who will not vote for them; which makes them look like judgmental prudes- and makes easy ammo for the leftist- which hurts the party, especially since this link with the Christian coalition, was never apart of the Republican party. I know conservatives who believe in the common sense issues of conservatism, and what the Republican party stood for... But don't believe in god- though they respect it.

I lived in Santa Cruz for 11 years, and got to know quite a few gays and lesbians. My girlfriend at the time was in the landscaping/nursery business, and gay people were just part of the scene.

I don't think a lot of people realize that there are subcultures within the gay community. The gays that would be interested in forming long term legal relationships, tend to be typical working, normal people, in all respects. They don't seek the limelight, and just want to live their lives...........................much like most conservatives.

Unfortunately, the gay community also draws people that have other psychological issues going on. The pedophiles, sex addicts, and heavy drug users. These are the ones that make the news..................and therefore, the ones by whom others base their opinions of gays.

From what I understand from talking to gays, there isn't a choice in the matter. It's who they are. Not much different than if I was to wake up tomorrow morning and still be exactly who I am, but wrapped inside a female body. It sounds like torture.

I still have a problem with gays in the military. To place gays in units that are comprised of other people that are the natural, (for them), object of sexual desire, will cause problems. Particularly on long deployments, where it becomes necessary to forget about sex.
Here's an analogy on my feeling about gays in the military.........................
Suppose a group of men, 40-50 years old, decided to start a baby sitting network. None had done anything wrong, and all had clean background checks. They just happen to like kids.

I don't care how good their records are, there is no way in hell that I would leave my 5 year old daughter with one of those men. Does that mean I hate men? No. Could it be called prejudice? Sure it could. But the potential of abuse to my daugher, even if it's .000001 in a million, is not worth the risk.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 03:38:53 AM by kramarat »

Offline keyboarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
  • Gender: Female
Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2012, 04:31:25 AM »
I lived in Santa Cruz for 11 years, and got to know quite a few gays and lesbians. My girlfriend at the time was in the landscaping/nursery business, and gay people were just part of the scene.

I don't think a lot of people realize that there are subcultures within the gay community. The gays that would be interested in forming long term legal relationships, tend to be typical working, normal people, in all respects. They don't seek the limelight, and just want to live their lives...........................much like most conservatives.

Unfortunately, the gay community also draws people that have other psychological issues going on. The pedophiles, sex addicts, and heavy drug users. These are the ones that make the news..................and therefore, the ones by whom others base their opinions of gays.

From what I understand from talking to gays, there isn't a choice in the matter. It's who they are. Not much different than if I was to wake up tomorrow morning and still be exactly who I am, but wrapped inside a female body. It sounds like torture.

I still have a problem with gays in the military. To place gays in units that are comprised of other people that are the natural, (for them), object of sexual desire, will cause problems. Particularly on long deployments, where it becomes necessary to forget about sex.
Here's an analogy on my feeling about gays in the military.........................
Suppose a group of men, 40-50 years old, decided to start a baby sitting network. None had done anything wrong, and all had clean background checks. They just happen to like kids.

I don't care how good their records are, there is no way in hell that I would leave my 5 year old daughter with one of those men. Does that mean I hate men? No. Could it be called prejudice? Sure it could. But the potential of abuse to my daugher, even if it's .000001 in a million, is not worth the risk.

Kramarat,
Your fears for your daughter would be justified and the problem you refer to becomes even more worrisome when she starts to school.  This is my biggest fear for our children, that they become indoctrinated to values that we don't approve of. 
.If you want to lead the orchestra, you must turn your back to the crowd      Forbes

 

Powered by EzPortal